(no subject)

[robinturner]

Found this in kiad's userinfo (I don't know whether she agrees with it or not - probabaly not, judging by the other quotations)

The motto of the Royal Society of London is 'Nullius in verba' : trust not in words. Observation and experiment are what count, not opinion and introspection. Few working scientists have much respect for those who try to interpret nature in metaphysical terms. For most wearers of white coats, philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier, and some people seem, bafflingly, to prefer it. Outside of psychology it plays almost no part in the functions of the research machine.''
(Steve Jones, University College, London)
From his review of How the Mind Works (by Steve Pinker) in The New York Review of Books (pages 13-14) November 6, 1997.

Typical psychologist reaction. They're stuck with a pre-paradigmatic science, so they sling mud at anything that sound unempirical. Physicists don't have this inferiority complex, and so don't slag off philosophy.

Comments

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

I agree. Romance is usually only there as an opportunity for Austen to make acid but understated observations on her society.

The problem I have with Austen is that, while I accept she's a keen observer and a brilliant stylist, she writes about, in the words of my old Science Fiction teacher, "boring people doing boring things". I propose a reverse Bowdlerisation

• Crazed courier goes postal with a blunderbuss in Mansfield Park!


• Sense and Sensibility - the guy has both sisters!


• Northanger Abbey gets really Gothic, with vampires, flesh-eating zombies etc.

Re: science & philosophy

[watermelonpunch.livejournal.com]

Um, but they're not "guy books", like "guy movies". I think that could be part of the issue there.
Seriously.
Indeed, I wouldn't recommend Jane Austen to any man really.

Because I completely disagree. The stories are not about boring people doing boring things. I found all her stories fascinating and, indeed, gripping. Very interesting.

Could be about being a conniseour of human folly too. heh.
I'm a great people watcher, if you know what I mean.

Just last night my friend Leslie (who is a psychiatrist and much like me in that), said, "You know, my mother's right, we do find amusement in silly small things."

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

Maybe I just have a problem with the "novel of manners". I haven't read that much nineteenth-century fiction (I even read as little of it as I could when I was studying it), but the two authors I do like are Joseph Conrad and Thomas Hardy, who sort of write "guy novels". Splice the mainbrace and bring in the hay. In general, I vastly prefer genre fiction: SF, horror, detective stories (in the Chandler rather than the Christie tradition), satire, historical novels (of the swashbuckling, not the romantic variety), magical realism and so on. Overall, I suppose that makes me a "guy book" kind of a guy.

BTW, an excellent (female) TV presenter here in Turkey recently said something like, "It's not true about men being unemotional. Your husband may yawn his way through the Meg Ryan film which had you constantly reaching for the tissues, but sit him in front of a war film, wait for the scene where the hero's carrying his dying buddy, and watch the tears roll down his nose."

BTW, despite my flippant comments about sex scenes, I generally don't enjoy erotic fiction. I can handle Anais Nin in small doses, but when I tried reading The Story of O I got bored to death and gave up after about thirty pages.

Re: science & philosophy

[watermelonpunch.livejournal.com]

It very well could be the "novel of manners" issue. I quite like that topic, really.

But though I like Joseph Conrad, you hit it right on the spot - definitely a guy novel writer.
Indeed, there are many meandering observational descriptions of Joseph Conrad's that I found less clever and more ho-hum, while they're probably the observations a lot of men would find very shrewd.
I don't think this makes a something good or bad. It's just a matter of how in some things, men & women have different perspectives.
I can enjoy a "guy movie", for example, some are among my favourites - but I notice those elements straight away, and often find them humourous. (I'm less likely to put up with it in literature though, as time goes on. Not quite sure why.)

While I'm moved by war movies... I don't particularly seek them out. I don't enjoy that type of emotionalism. But I do know many men who do, and most of the women I know actually hate war movies.

BTW, I'm not heavy into erotic fiction, period. Though I do like romance, and certainly don't mind some erotica in a more complete story. Like mystery or action, etc.
And I must say, I've noticed I'm more interested in "sex scenes" in reading material during times I'm "not getting any" myself. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if it weren't for erotic literature, I'd probably wouldn't be such a prude... I very well might be very promiscuous. HAHAHA.